1. Field of the Invention:
The present invention relates generally to psychometric studies. More particularly, the present invention relates to a computer program enabling a mental health clinician, of less skill than an M.D., D.O., or Ph.D., to perform psychometric evaluations, obtain meaningful symptomatic analysis, and recommend courses of treatment from the evaluation.
2. Discussion of the Related Art:
Heretofore, psychological evaluations and diagnosis were largely conducted by letting the patient discuss his feelings in a monologue, either unguided or guided by the mental health practitioner. From this monologue, the practitioner ascertains symptoms of psychological impairment and/or areas of adequate psychological functioning, i.e., a picture of the mental health of the patient.
From these symptoms the practitioner decides on a course of treatment for the symptoms of the patient.
Further, such a traditional approach suffers from a number of shortcomings, among which are:
(1) the length of time necessary to develop an adequate diagnosis; PA1 (2) a high level of training and skill, e.g. an M.D., D.O., or Ph.D. is ordinarily required of the practitioner to conduct such an evaluation; PA1 (3) the evaluation process lacks uniformity and reliability when conducted either by a single practitioner or, especially, by different practitioners; and particularly as applied over a series of evaluations; PA1 (4) the evaluation process is not readily understood by patients; and PA1 (5) the evaluation is not readily quantifiable in numerical terms or easily displayed in a graphic format. PA1 (a) storing data representing a list of numbered evaluative indicators in a computer memory; PA1 (b) displaying the evaluative indicators on an Input/Output device; PA1 (c) entering a numerical datum score of patient performance level, corresponding to a response of a patient for each evaluative indicator, with an Input/Output device into the computer memory, the total data representing an evaluation; PA1 (d) calculating graph coordinates within a CPU using the numerical data on a first axis and evaluative indicators on a second axis; PA1 (e) displaying a graph of the coordinates on an Input/Output device; PA1 (f) evaluating the numerical data within the CPU to determine the psychiatric symptoms and assets of the patient; PA1 (g) matching the evaluated data with treatment plan options stored in the computer memory to select a treatment plan for the patient; and PA1 (h) displaying the selected treatment plan on an Input/Output device.
Some tools exist to address some of these deficiencies, in part. A magazine article authored by J. Hedlund and B Vieweg which discusses computer usage in psychiatric practice can be found in the April 1988 issue of Psychiatric Annals on pages 217-227, and this article contains an extensive list of references.
Although discussing pioneering efforts and work accomplished so far, two of the findings of the above-identified magazine article are of note here: (1) there has been surprisingly little development of new psychological testing designed to take advantage of the special capabilities of the computer, and (2) the danger that automation of the testing will increase the problem of invalid interpretation by untrained people. This points to the need in the art for a well defined test, of general applicability, that calls for responses and reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation of results, while taking advantage of the power of computers of today, especially office and personal computers.
A well-known work in the field of mental health as is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health, American Psychiatric Association, 3rd ed. rev. (1987) and 4th ed. rev. (1994) (hereinafter abbreviated DSM). This text contains lists of diagnostic categories and criteria, with a scale, weighted 0-6, to score responses. The DSM system does not quantify severity in a measurable term except in an estimated GAFS score nor does it address a functional level of a healthy individual. Grading on the DSM scale, while using the same spread, does not have the same severity from response to response. That is, a grade of 4 in one category does not correspond to a grade of 4 in another category. Therefore, an overall consistency is not achieved by the DSM system, hindering significance in diagnosis and treatment. Other clinical assessment tools currently exist, particularly the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), Global Assessment Scale, Mini Psychiatric Scale, the Hamilton anxiety scale, the Hamilton Depression Scale, and the Beck Inventory. Like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the effectiveness of these devices is limited: the GAS, and Mini Psychiatric Scale are too broad in scope; and the Hamilton and Beck Inventory are too restricted in specificity. Neuropsychological testing is generally very specific in scope, as available in the prior art. Thus, these tools are therefore only of limited assistance in general situations, or are effective only in specialized circumstances; they do not cover the variety of individual differences in health or in pathological adaptation.
A need therefore exists in the art for a concise, easily utilized, consistent and readily graphed and understood psychometric and diagnostic method, and particularly for such a method which is easily accessible and manipulatable, and which has its entire stock of diagnostic evaluations readily available and comparable with each other.